St Louis Skyline (St. Louis, Washington, Clayton: apartments, lofts, new construction)

[lancerbaseball5]

I know a lot of people are against building large skyscrapers around the arch because it would "obstruct the view" of our city's symbol. But come on. Our skyline, as seen from the river, kinda sucks. Looking west to east (Clayton thru downtown) is great.

So in lieu of the new arch ground plans, how 'bout plans to revamp the skyline as well?

Not necessarily giant Chrysler Building-esqe behemoths, but six or seven new buildings in the 600ft range. Office buildings, lofts/apartments, whatever.

Our city could look a whole hell of a lot better if the riverfront was fixed up.

So...am I crazy? (probably not)
Or is this realistic at all?

[moorlander]

If there was demand then they would be built. You can't just build six 50 story buildings so your skyline looks better.

True, our skyline isn't as tall as maybe it should be for a metro area our size, but that is because we have 2 central business districts.

Progresss downtown continues as now nearly all of the older buildings have been rehabbed. While it's frustrating that there are man retail bays that remain empty, the awful economy national and an evolving local economy take much of the blame.

The brand new 25 story Roberts Tower looks spectacular. Now that much of the rehab is completed, we should see a move to new construction by the end of the decade.

[aragx6]

As Moorlander said, building Class A office buildings is expensive and we already have a greta deal of empty commerical space in downtown St. Louis.

I know, however, that Downtown Now's new plan envisions a new Class A office building downtown.

St. Louis Downtown Now!

[kcmo]

There is nothing wrong with the StL skyline and nothing wrong with the arch dominating it from the east. The way StL is built, I don't think there is a way to make the skyline pop from the east side of the river. The arch is the skyline from over there and always will be.

You have to get away from east StL to see the true massing of the StL skyline as most in StL know. I think the city has a great skyline with or without the arch. StL could use one or two more 40-50 story buildings, but even that wouldn't change the stand postcard shot of downtown StL much.

Enjoy one of the most recognizable skylines in the world.

[DinsdalePirahna]

The skyline is horrid and cheesy looking from any visitor coming from the north (ie the airport) and the east. Without the arch, it is nothing more than Padukah, KY. There is no unity or symmetry. I posted I pix a while back where I photoshopped the arch out and St. Louis is not an impressive city.

The view inside the stadium is beautiful, and if a visitor is arriving from i 64, the area looks somewhat respectable, except most of the "grandeur" is Clayton.

You do not need tall buildings to create a beautiful city. Washington DC and Paris are two good examples of that.

[kshe95girl]

Originally Posted by DinsdalePirahna

The skyline is horrid and cheesy looking from any visitor coming from the north (ie the airport) and the east. Without the arch, it is nothing more than Padukah, KY. There is no unity or symmetry. I posted I pix a while back where I photoshopped the arch out and St. Louis is not an impressive city.

-sigh- We all are familiar with your contempt of STL. Why do you persist with the negativity?
Yeah, the STL skyline looks like Paducahs like I look like Lady Gaga.

[moorlander]

How can a skyline look cheesy? And what do you mean by "most of the "grandeur" is Clayton"???

If you're comparing StL to NY, Chicago, Miami, Philly, or San Fran than yes our skyline doesn't compare.

St. Louis has similarly sized skylines to similarly sized Cities. For example our skyline is much bigger and prettier than Phoenix, Milwaukee, Baltimore, OKC, Indy, Nashville, Tampa, Charlotte, DC and on par or better than Cincy, Pittsburg, and KC, Denver, and San Diego. Similarly sized cities that have more impressive skylines are probably Minneapolis and Seattle.

We have two central business districts so unfortunately our skyline isn't as big as a result. It's nothing to be ashamed of.

[zach_33]

I've always liked the way the Sears Tower dominates the Chicago skyline as you approach from the west (on the Eisenhower in particular). I'd like to see a similarly proportioned (relative to all the other surrounding buildings) skyscraper erected in St. Louis. 800 feet would do the trick. Of course, I am sure there are better things to do with the money in today's economy, but this is a pie-in-the-sky thread after all. fwiw, my favorite perspective of the St. Louis skyline is approaching downtown from the south on I-55 as you come out under the Gravois overpass (not sure why, maybe it's the context of Bohemian Hill in the foreground).

[goat314]

I love how people like Dinsdale like to point out that our skyline would suck with out the arch. What they fail to realize is that the arch is indeed a reality and isn't going anywhere. Also if we didn't have the arch we would have a 19th century riverfront larger than the French Quarter, so St. Louis would still be impressive.

[kshe95girl]

I was in Orlando yesterday, mentally compared its skyline to the STL skyline.
Nothing wrong with the STL skyline. Orlando, on the other hand.......